Vitamin D deficiency has been commonly reported in elite athletes, but the vitamin D status of UK university athletes in different training environments remains unknown. The present study aimed to determine any seasonal changes in vitamin D status among indoor and outdoor athletes, and whether there was any relationship between vitamin D status and indices of physical performance and bone health. A group of forty-seven university athletes (indoor n 22, outdoor n 25) were tested during autumn and spring for serum vitamin D status, bone health and physical performance parameters. Blood samples were analysed for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (s-25(OH)D) status. Peak isometric knee extensor torque using an isokinetic dynamometer and jump height was assessed using an Optojump. Aerobic capacity was estimated using the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test. Peripheral quantitative computed tomography scans measured radial bone mineral density. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate parametric/non-parametric testing depending on the normality of the data. s-25(OH)D significantly fell between autumn (52·8 (sd 22·0) nmol/l) and spring (31·0 (sd 16·5) nmol/l; P < 0·001). In spring, 34 % of participants were considered to be vitamin D deficient (<25 nmol/l) according to the revised 2016 UK guidelines. These data suggest that UK university athletes are at risk of vitamin D deficiency. Thus, further research is warranted to investigate the concomitant effects of low vitamin D status on health and performance outcomes in university athletes residing at northern latitudes.

One story that can be told about the development of legal protections for certain forced migrants in international law is, in terms of the scope of protection, a progressive one. From expanded definitions of who is entitled to refugee-law protection, to the development of complementary protection in human rights law, the ambit of that which the law purports to cover has moved wider. This might be seen as part of the broader trend in the expanding coverage of international human rights law generally. Yet, a counternarrative can also be told: a diminished commitment on the part of many states, particularly economically advantaged ones, to inward migration, including of forced migrants, as evidenced in the expanded scope of non-entrée, “closed borders” measures, from visa restrictions to carrier sanctions, push-back operations, and an unwillingness to engage in numerically significant refugee resettlements to their countries. This backlash trend can also be identified in human rights policy generally. Just as the scope of human rights legal protection in general, and the legal protection accorded to certain migrants in particular, has expanded, so too states have become less willing to provide such protection.

The spatial test for triggering the extraterritorial application of the main treaties on civil and political rights law has been the subject of significant judicial comment in recent years. This piece offers a critical evaluation of an important common theme in these judicial determinations: the suggestion that the spatial test is to be understood in a manner that covers a sub-set of extraterritorial activity involving territorial control occurring as a matter of fact. It provides a sustained explanation and critical evaluation of four different ways such a suggestion can be identified in some of the key judicial determinations on the issue of the extraterritorial application of treaties on civil and political rights generally. Since one of the other main areas of law potentially relevant to extraterritorial activity—the law of occupation—also uses a test of territorial control as a trigger for application, the interplay between the approaches taken in each area of law on the question of what type of control is required mediates the extent to which the fields of activity covered by the two areas of law overlap. Understanding the merit of the determinations concerning human rights law discussed in this piece is significant, then, not only on its own terms, but also because of its significance to the broader question of the overlap between human rights law and the law of occupation.

This Article offers a critical evaluation of the treatment of the suitability of applying human rights law to occupation situations offered by the English House of Lords in the Al-Skeini judgment of 2007. Al-Skeini concerned the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the United Kingdom in Iraq. In the decision, the majority asserted that the application of human rights law would amount to a form of “imperialism” in requiring an occupying State to impose culturally inappropriate norms in occupied territory. They also found that its application would undermine the status quo norm contained in occupation law, by obliging an occupying State to transform the legal system in occupied territory in order to bring it in line with the human rights standards in play. This Article argues that these two assertions are based on a mistaken understanding of the substantive meaning of human rights obligations in occupation situations, and the effect on this meaning of the interface with other areas of international law. It is suggested that the fear of “human rights imperialism” is, as articulated here, misconceived; that applying human rights law to occupation situations may not actually involve breaching the law of occupation; and that in any case a more sophisticated approach to the question of clashes in normative regimes needs to be adopted.

Antiquarian and modern excavations at Castor, Cambs., have been taking place since the seventeenth century. The site, which lies under the modern village, has been variously described as a Roman villa, a guild centre and a palace, while Edmund Artis working in the 1820s termed it the ‘Praetorium’. The Roman buildings covered an area of 3.77 ha (9.4 acres) and appear to have had two main phases, the latter of which formed a single unified structure some 130 by 90 m. This article attempts to draw together all of the previous work at the site and provide a comprehensive plan, a set of suggested dates, and options on how the remains could be interpreted.

This piece provides critical analysis of some of the broader consequences of what is potentially suggested by certain findings in the 2010 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on ‘Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo’. The focus is on consequences for disputes generally, and disputes relating to self-determination and secession in particular, in either case including disputes that have been made subject to a Security Council-imposed settlement process. In the first place, the piece considers the relatively specific suggestion that sub-state groups are free to unilaterally terminate a Security Council-imposed process aimed at enabling the resolution of a dispute concerning their aspirations to external self-determination, without this termination having to comply with the principles of justice and international law. In the second place, the piece considers the relatively broad suggestion that the act of any sub-state group of declaring independence and seceding from the state within which it is located, without the consent of that state or any other international legal sanction, is likewise not regulated by international law.